boomhappyspritesfandomcom-20200215-history
Current World Rankings (Top 20)
Update 2020 - Official, up-to-date World Ranks for Boom! are available on our Discord server, downloaded direct from the Boom! servers, along with all your other game stats. The Discord server also has all-time leaderboards for every level and a 'Level of the Day' challenge and weekly tournament. ''' '''If you have Discord, you can join the server by using this invite link. -- Here's the latest top 20. I get asked a lot who's on this list, so I thought I'd post it as it's not available elsewhere. Last upload: 1 Mar 2015 How the rankings work (maybe) We don't really know how the rankings work, but this is my theory and it fits my observations: 1. Rank is not calculated based on historical performance or stats, it is based on some hidden points system. You increase your rank by earning these 'ranking points' and the person with the most points is no. 1, etc. 2. You accumulate 'ranking points' by playing VS and WC. How many points you receive (or lose) for each race depends on how you perform relative to your rank, and who you beat (for VS at least, perhaps also for WCs). The higher your rank, the fewer points you get for winning, because the system expects you to win. The lower your rank, the more points you get for winning, because the system expects you to lose. This is why top players who start 2nd accounts rank up so quickly. Top-ranked players need to maintain a high standard or they will lose points. Players who do nothing will maintain their rank relative to other players who also do nothing. Andrea69 recently got to the top of the rankings despite almost never playing, simply because everyone above him had retired. 3. Each time the ranking system updates, it looks at your results in the previous few hours only and allocates you points (or reduces them) based on your performance against expectation for your rank. Your points total shifts up or down. It doesn't look at what you did yesterday or months ago. If you didn't play, your points don't change. This means that if you have a bad result and lose a place or two, you can get that place back by having some good results; you aren't penalised for bad results more than once. This points system explains why long-standing accounts like mine and Firestorm's can be ranked highly despite having worse historical averages than some newer accounts - our performance since the rankings were introduced is much better than our averages. You may be the worst player in the world, but if you suddenly win 100 world cups in a row in festival park, you'll find yourself in the top ten (probably). worth noting that the ranking system is always an hour behind your performance - a win in a world cup from 4-5pm isn't reflected in your rank until at least 6pm, or the next time after that when the system updates World Cups You seem to get more 'ranking points' for winning world cups in FP than in RF, and so on down the chain. This may be because the game allocates more points for results in FP, or it may be because you beat have to beat better players in FP, or both of these things. When you move up a world, this is often followed by a rise in rank (assuming you keep winning). However, winning consistently (and possible in streaks) at lower levels appears to be better for your rank than winning less often at higher levels. So a WC average of 1.1 in FH seems to be more beneficial than a WC average of 1.5 in FP. This is a shame because the standard in FP is much, much higher than any other world. Having said that, a top player coming 5th in a FP world cup doesn't seem to lose as many ranking points as a top player coming 2nd in a RF world cup. VS Challenges In VS challenges, my theory has always been that points are ONLY allocated when one player gives up (or deletes the challenge). A simple win (beating someone's time) just puts the turn back to them. Only when they give up do you get a reward, and likewise only when you give up do you lose points. We know for certain that deleting a challenge loses you ranking points. This is meant to discourage people from achieving artificially high VS averages by deleting anyone who has the potential to beat them. Beating high-ranked players in VS (when they give up) appears to earn you more points than beating low-ranked players, although of course beating lots and lots of low-ranked players will still give you lots of points. Similarly giving up or deleting against low-ranked players carries more of a penalty than against high-ranked players. Strategy for high rank The above is still very much open for debate, but in general, this is how to get a top 100 rank in a few weeks: #Play and win a large amount of VS - 100 or so a day. Think of it as a steady stream of small amounts of ranking points. #If you can't beat a VS, don't give up or delete, just leave it in the list. Permanently if necessary. #Don't rush to move up the worlds. Pick up as many easy world cup wins as you can for as long as you can. Only go up to FP if you are sure you can consistently get podiums. #Don't worry if you're not ranking up quickly - it's a cumulative thing. As long as your results are better than the game expects for your rank, you will keep moving up. #Don't give up in VS challenges. Did I already mention that? Just don't. Ranking anomalies There are some players whose rank appears to be unusually high, looking at their stats. Some of these are players who have played a large number of VS over a long period of time and accumuated a lot of ranking points in the process, but others just don't seem to make sense. Our best guess at the moment is that these are players who were ranked highly the very first time the rankings were produced, perhaps because the standard of performance at the top was much lower then, and who have subsequently protected their rank by not entering world cups and never giving up in VS (and therefore never losing any ranking points). Immediately after the rankings were first introduced, players who were inactive rose in the rankings whilst players who were initially ranked highly fell back. My assumption is that the very first ranking produced was some sort of approximation and it allocated too many points to the top players. If those players then underperformed against the ranking system's expectation, they lost points, whilst players who did nothing retained theirs, ultimately ending up much higher than they deserved. Mac IMG_7596.PNG IMG_7597.PNG IMG_7598.PNG IMG_7599.PNG IMG_7600.PNG IMG_7601.PNG IMG_7602.PNG IMG_7603.PNG IMG_7604.PNG IMG_7605.PNG IMG_7606.PNG IMG_7607.PNG IMG_7608.PNG IMG_7609.PNG IMG_7610.PNG IMG_7611.PNG IMG_7612.PNG IMG_7613.PNG IMG_7614.PNG IMG_7615.PNG IMG_7616.PNG|gary the hacker